Judge declares PA voter ID law is invalid

christiefan915

christiefan915

Catalyst
Dumb and arrogant moron Corbett and his corrupt cronies handed a defeat, and I'm thrilled.

HARRISBURG -- A Commonwealth Court judge on Friday ruled the Pennsylvania voter ID law violates the state constitution by imposing an unreasonable burden on voters, dealing the controversial requirement its most serious blow in nearly two years of litigation. The top attorney to Gov. Tom Corbett, one of many Republicans who support the law, said the administration has yet to determine whether it will appeal to the state Supreme Court, although observers and the law's challengers expect it will.

The Supreme Court worked quickly when it addressed voter ID in the run-up to the 2012 election, so it remains unknown whether voters will be required to show photo identification in the May primary. For now, however, the law is invalid after Judge Bernard McGinley of Commonwealth Court found that it "unreasonably burdens the right to vote" and threatens a fundamental right of hundreds of thousands of qualified voters.

"Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID Law does not further this goal," the decision states. The Republican-controlled Legislature in March 2012 passed the law, one of the strictest in the nation, over objections from Democrats, who, along with other critics, said the measure would suppress voting by poor people, minorities and elderly residents.


​
 
One must prove that they have healthcare, thanks to Obama, but they'll take your word for it when it comes to the voting booths. The ACA is supposed to help millions who were previously uninsured. I wonder how these millions of people are getting insurance without valid identification?
 
The left has many corrupt judges when they're needed. If getting voter ID is a "burden", how are they able to feed themselves and wipe their lying asses?
 
Help me.....help me.....im a liberal.... help me...won't you please help me.....I'm a liberal and can't do a damn thing without a govt drone. Help.....
 
The greatest liars this world has ever seen come from the Left. The Master Accuser cheers them for good reason.
 
Fact: In a 50-page determination (with another 50 pages of appendices) issued Friday morning, Judge McGinley found that a lack of compelling governmental interest in imposing the requirement -- the state acknowledged at the start that it knew of no cases of in-person voting fraud, the kind addressed by voter ID -- could not justify the law in the face of "overwhelming evidence" that hundreds of thousands of qualified voters lack acceptable documentation.

Information: Louis Daguerre and Joseph Nicéphore Niépce (who was Daguerre's partner, but died before their invention was completed) invented the first practical photographic method, which was named the daguerreotype, in 1839.

Questions: Why no photo ID required 150 years ago? Why no photo ID required 50 years ago? WHY NOW?

​
 
jimnyc said:
One must prove that they have healthcare, thanks to Obama, but they'll take your word for it when it comes to the voting booths. The ACA is supposed to help millions who were previously uninsured. I wonder how these millions of people are getting insurance without valid identification?
Click to expand...

"the state acknowledged at the start that it knew of no cases of in-person voting fraud, the kind addressed by voter ID "
 
christiefan915 said:
Dumb and arrogant moron Corbett and his corrupt cronies handed a defeat, and I'm thrilled.

HARRISBURG -- A Commonwealth Court judge on Friday ruled the Pennsylvania voter ID law violates the state constitution by imposing an unreasonable burden on voters, dealing the controversial requirement its most serious blow in nearly two years of litigation. The top attorney to Gov. Tom Corbett, one of many Republicans who support the law, said the administration has yet to determine whether it will appeal to the state Supreme Court, although observers and the law's challengers expect it will.

The Supreme Court worked quickly when it addressed voter ID in the run-up to the 2012 election, so it remains unknown whether voters will be required to show photo identification in the May primary. For now, however, the law is invalid after Judge Bernard McGinley of Commonwealth Court found that it "unreasonably burdens the right to vote" and threatens a fundamental right of hundreds of thousands of qualified voters.

"Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID Law does not further this goal," the decision states. The Republican-controlled Legislature in March 2012 passed the law, one of the strictest in the nation, over objections from Democrats, who, along with other critics, said the measure would suppress voting by poor people, minorities and elderly residents.


​
Click to expand...

Of course you would be thrilled; dunces on the left are always thrilled in when Democratic jurists violate the Constitution and believe in legislating from the bench rather than proper interpretation of the law democratically passed by legislators elected by the people. God forbid if it be a Republican overturning Democrats.

Democracy only works when YOUR "deciders" are in power and violating the will of the people.

It is a fascinating argument to make as well; that requiring something as common as legal ID is somehow a violation of rights. Good luck with that when it gets to the Supreme Court.

Of course Democrats, who are known cheaters, would not like any possible law to prevent illicit voting. They know they can't win merely by duping low information voters.
 
jimnyc said:
One must prove that they have healthcare, thanks to Obama, but they'll take your word for it when it comes to the voting booths. The ACA is supposed to help millions who were previously uninsured. I wonder how these millions of people are getting insurance without valid identification?
Click to expand...

BINGO!!
 
Truth Detector said:
Of course you would be thrilled; dunces on the left are always thrilled in when Democratic jurists violate the Constitution and believe in legislating from the bench rather than proper interpretation of the law democratically passed by legislators elected by the people. God forbid if it be a Republican overturning Democrats.

Democracy only works when YOUR "deciders" are in power and violating the will of the people.

It is a fascinating argument to make as well; that requiring something as common as legal ID is somehow a violation of rights. Good luck with that when it gets to the Supreme Court.

Of course Democrats, who are known cheaters, would not like any possible law to prevent illicit voting. They know they can't win merely by duping low information voters.
Click to expand...

Let's recap. The judge issued a 50-page decision and the main point is that there was no illicit voting that could have been prevented by photo ID, and you make an inane argument about violating the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it say a photo ID is required to vote?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top